Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  June 27, 2016 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT

12:00 pm
the course we are following is the best course. a number of events have made it evident that general macarthur did not agree with the policy. i have therefore considered it a essential to relieve general macarthur so that there would be no doubt or confusion as to the purpose of our policy. it is of the deepest personal regret that i found myself compelled to take this action. general macarthur is one of our greatest military commanders, but the cause of world peace is much more important than any individual. military commanders, but the cause of world peace is much more important than any individual. brian: what happened? arthur: this is one of those moments when you begin to realize that the clash of personalities is as important as the clash of ideologies and collision of the events or
12:01 pm
convergence of social and economic forces. the fact of the matter is that mcarthur had come to develop a strong dislike of harry truman and president truman had come to develop a strong dislike of general macarthur. the fact of the matter is that they both had a dislike for the other. one was a president and the other one was given the power as supreme commander of u.s. forces after north korea invaded south korea. macarthur believed the way in which to end this conflict as he began the process of pushing back up the peninsula after chinese intervention in november of 1950, as he began the process of pushing back up, really liberating south korea again, the second time around after the first liberation in september of 1950 when macarthur assumed command. we can talk about the inchon landing if you want, but that is
12:02 pm
the landmark, the highlight of his military career, that landing at inchon on the korean peninsula that really shattered north korea's ability to conduct the war. liberating not just seoul by pyongyang. then the chinese intervene. there's a massive rollback. they pushed the chinese back. approached the 30th parallel. macarthur's plan was that you could end the war with a victory. we would defeat not just north korea, but the chinese or forces. we have to take the necessary steps including strategic warming and perhaps nuclear weapons. make it so the chinese cannot resupply their armies in north korea. famous statement, "there is no substitute for victory."
12:03 pm
the truman administration disagreed. and they thought there was a substitute. a stalemate. they returned u.n. forces to the 38th parallel. free south korea from communist domination but allowing north korea and the chinese to remain in place north of the border, or boundary line. the 38th parallel. macarthur was outspoken about why he felt this kind of approach would be a mistake. why he felt his hands had been tied by the truman administration in terms of dealing with and lashing out at the chinese. deal a decisive defeat. this is what macarthur does. he sounds off to reporters. he had done that all of his career. but for truman, this became i think a moment in which he had to decide whether he was going to be able to continue and have someone who would embrace a
12:04 pm
stalemate strategy as opposed to tied by the truman administration in terms of a victorious strategy and to keep his mouth shut at the same time. brian: did general macarthur answer directly to the president or to the joint chiefs? arthur: this is one of the important things to keep in mind that i explained in the book. all of macarthur's moves and korea for which he later faces intense criticism, including his push up the river through north korea, the fact is the joint chiefs had approved and more the actions he had taken. from the military point of view, it seemed unimpeachable the approach and strategy. but from a political standpoint, from the point of view of truman and his advisors, there was a feeling that the push for a war, the fault war might do to things. it would force the european allies to drop out, because they would not be interested in doing that. they would not want to see a war that would be continuing up beyond the 38 aryl all that's what it engaged china more extensively. but it also might trigger a response from the russians and josef stalin who might see his chinese ally on the point of collapse might launch an offensive in europe.
12:05 pm
which of course, is where a soviet divisions were the deployment on the border of germany. brian: by the way, how many troops are on the 38th parallel now? arthur: 20,000. still. by that, there is no peace treaty. formally, there is an armistice. but not a peace treaty. macarthur dismissed these ideas. he believed china could be defeated. as i point out, there may be a good reason he could have done that and he believes stalin would not intervene. we know now that that is also
12:06 pm
true. macarthur was right on that. we found that out through the soviet archives. basically, stalin thought this entire operation had been botched almost from the beginning. he was given a guarantee by the north korean dictator that if north korea invaded with chinese help, the americans would not intervene. they immediately intervened. from that point on, just as stalin was like, this is your problem. it is not my problem any longer. but truman had to make a call. did he do the right thing? was it necessary to remove general macarthur? probably it was. was it the right policy to carry through? i guess history might have a different judgment. it might be a necessary blunder. history is dotted by necessary blunders. what i think the acceptance of the final status, the stalemate in korea just might fit into that. brian: so he came home and we have now been through the first world war, the second world war,
12:07 pm
the japan experience, the korean war, and i guess we saw him address the republican national convention. i would like to go to the chapter that brings a lot of it together in one chapter. it is called "saving fdr." arthur: oh yes. that is an interesting chapter. brian: i want to read what you wrote and have you explain it. this is during the fdr years and macarthur is in the oval office talking to fdr. "roosevelt's own assessment was more nuanced despite his "most dangerous man in america" remark. before the inauguration, he revealed his true thinking. i've known doug for years. you've never heard him talk, but i have. he makes the most pretentious remarks of anyone i know. he talks in a voice that might come from an oracle's cave. he makes announcements. what he thinks is final." what does that tell you about the relationship between general macarthur and fdr? arthur: a little bit of background about that. this is at a point in which that was macarthur holds the highest post in the united states army.
12:08 pm
he had just gone through a debacle called the bonus army march. it was a public relations disaster for the hoover administration, in which army troops were used to oust world war veterans, including many who had served with macarthur who came to demand payment of bonuses they had been promised on their government pensions for having served in the service during world war i. they set up a tent city and refused to go when ordered and when the bonus was voted down by congress. in the end, the police were unable to control the crowd. they asked for support from the u.s. army and the cars are as -- and the job was to basically supervise the operation and it was ugly.
12:09 pm
it was an ugly series of riots. people were killed. a big propaganda campaign was launched by the communist supporters of the bonus march to paint douglas macarthur as this fascist killer of innocent men and women. so, the question had come up about whether fdr then becomes president. it probably doomed hoover's reelection in 1932. if the great depression did not take away his chances, the bonus army debacle did. so the question was, would he be kept on by fdr as chief of
12:10 pm
staff. or would he be fired? everybody assumed he would be fired, that macarthur was out. he is a conservative republican. fdr is a liberal democrat. no-brainer. in fact, roosevelt was smart and he realized that macarthur was somebody who, despite these characteristics of his, this tremendous egotism, this sense of the infallibility to papal standards, that despite this, this was a man who would be useful for roosevelt to have as part of his team and he could be really support to the administration. and douglas macarthur, to his credit, realize that as well. one thing was the interesting cooperation between those two men that began to arise after roosevelt became president. everybody is a prized. the archconservative and the arch liberal become partners.
12:11 pm
helping to build the economy. brian: i will read you this again for the background. then this paragraph. brian: and then later, fdr says,
12:12 pm
you must not talk that way to the president of the united states. what is that all about? arthur: that is about budget cuts to the u.s. army. the budget had been slashed. first of all by hoover, not roosevelt. hoover also had taken a serious ax to funding appropriations. roosevelt comes in with further cuts. so that scene your are describing that unfolds in the oval office is roosevelt, the secretary of war and macarthur fighting it out over the implications of these budget cuts. how crippled with the u.s. army would be if these registrants were put into place. our boys would be dying needlessly because of it. brian: where did this come from,
12:13 pm
by the way? are the quotes from general macarthur or from roosevelt? arthur: that comes from his own account. brian: i just vomited on the steps of the white house. he writes. arthur: that is very interesting. these are memoirs he writes just before his death. for the first time for many people exposing that aspect of what you are talking about at the beginning, the insecurities, that sense of self doubt, that feeling of being overwhelmed at certain moments of crisis. this was an example of that kind of thing. this is macarthur realizing that what he has just done could end his career, but also a feeling that this is a situation in which, although he had to speak out, he had to take a strong position, this was one which was not a position of strength that was in fact a position of weakness. there is no doubt that macarthur knows what he said was wrong. he knows that he should not have confronted the president and in that kind of way. the scene on the steps where he throws up is sort of a symbol of that feeling. and yet, the secretary of war turns to him and says, you have just saved the u.s. army. brian: there are other things in this chapter. one is isabel. the mother, the fact that there is a major eisenhower. a to aide to -- it's hard to put together -- eisenhower was an
12:14 pm
aide, a low-level aide to macarthur. and went on to become president as we talked about. but talk about isabel. arthur: douglas macarthur, everybody is junior to douglas macarthur. that is a simple fact of life. even in world war ii, when he became supreme commander in the south asia pacific area, he is the one person to choose from. he is the one person who after the baton campaign, had actual committees. fighting the japanese is just about the only officer who has seen military combat in world war i. and had a general's right during that conflict. that is important to keep in mind and why he is able to speak with this kind of command. olympian command. everybody else has been sort of, latecomers to the army career. brian: isabel. dimples. about the only officer who has seen military combat in world war i. and had a general's right during that conflict. arthur: dimples. dimples was an actress from the philippines who he met. there she is looking very charming. just the sort of thing to itempt the attention from an army officer recently divorced. we talk about his mistress. he is absolutely and simply he is absolutely and simply monogamous.
12:15 pm
this is after his divorce that he strikes up with isabel. nicknamed dimples because she was the actress that was in the first philippine movie to show a kiss on film. he had, they had a very -- even though she was a couple of decades younger -- they have a very close relationship. brian: he met her when she was 16-years-old. arthur: so it is definitely a may-december or maybe may-november romance. he is so taken with her that he arranges for her to come to the united states and be in washington, d.c., while he is army chief of staff. in fact she had an apartment on 16th street. when my wife and i first moved to washington, d.c., we looked for apartments there. i did not know at that time that it was a historical landmark. home of dimples cooper.
12:16 pm
it was romantic but soon fell apart as he became -- realized that she was someone who, however attractive and the allure, she was really much too young and inexperienced and shallow for him. it does not end well. she goes off to hollywood and tries to get involved with films there. there are all kinds of albums that come after it. ryan: i am watching the clock and it is driving me crazy because we're so little time left. louise, -- the first wife, what's all about this? arthur: she is bitter. the first wife. wealthy and vivacious. the marriage has fallen apart. disillusionment. she was happy to spread all kinds of nasty gossip about him and his sexual prowess or lack thereof as a husband. and the real issue that was at hand was about whether,
12:17 pm
macarthur brought a libel suit, when the story came out. about isabel cooper. it came out in kind of an odd way. it's a complicated story. they were going to bring out letters he and isabel had written in exchange back and forth. they arranged for those letters she goes off to hollywood and tries to get involved with films there. there are all kinds of albums -- problems that come after it. brian: i am watching the clock and it is driving me crazy because we're so little time left. louise, -- the first wife, what's all about this? arthur: she is bitter. the first wife. wealthy and vivacious. the marriage has fallen apart. disillusionment. she was happy to spread all kinds of nasty gossip about him and his sexual prowess or lack thereof as a husband.
12:18 pm
and the real issue that was at hand was about whether, macarthur brought a libel suit, when the story came out. about isabel cooper. it came out in kind of an odd way. it's a complicated story. they were going to bring out letters he and isabel had written in exchange back and forth. they arranged for those letters to be buried forever in the archives of one of drew pearson's attorneys. i was able to get those letters from the university of texas library. they really are quite torrid. douglas macarthur, in the end, you read those letters, also c wrote to his first wife when there were courting in the 20's, you have to say that not only was douglas macarthur a great military commander in not only was he a great statesman as we see during his time and occupation japan, he is also a master of erotic prose in ways that are quite striking. brian: there was a chairman of
12:19 pm
the subcommittee that dealt with war back then and he got involved. he did not like him. arthur: they had enormous conflicts over how much money should be appropriated and the support for each branch of the military. a good lesson in many ways for any military force facing tight budgets. you keep the appropriations is -- spread equally across the different services and different divisions. and collins had a fixation on the question of mechanized work for at the time and felt the money should be put into that. brian: they had bad feelings.
12:20 pm
in other words, he was going to leak the affair. he know about the affair and he was going to link it and they would publish it. all that stuff. how did this all end up? arthur: washington sure has changed. [laughter] arthur: you don't hear stories like that anymore. brian: i want to run one last clip. some more what general macarthur was saying at the republican convention in '52. [begin video clip] general macarthur: our people are desperate for a plan that would revise hope and restore faith as they feel that oppressive burden of the tax levy on every source of revenue and property transaction. as they see that astronomically rising public debt mortgaging the industry, the well-being, the opportunity of our children and our children's children, there is no plan to transform extravagance into frugality, no desire to regain economic and fiscal stability, no prospect to
12:21 pm
return to the rugged ideals and collective tranquility of our fathers. [end video clip] brian: that was only 64 years ago. wasn't that something? arthur: it was in many ways incredibly depressing speech. issue of debt, public spending, how that becomes a way in which you mortgage a country's future. my gosh, in issue that has been hanging over us for the last couple of decades of not longer. people have asked me that if had macarthur won the nomination, that is an intriguing question. i think he would've been a lot like eisenhower. i think a lot of the policies that to eisenhower pursued would have appealed to mccarthy in many ways.
12:22 pm
he did believe the federal government had a strong role to play in things like infrastructure. interstate highway systems. he probably would have approved of that. but i think he was also somebody who foresaw that the growth of the welfare state would be something that politicians and congress and even the federal government might not be able to control. it could be a runaway train. that america would face later on and i think that is one of the things about macarthur that you had to say. he saw the future more clearly often then he saw the present. weather was america's role in asia, the rise of china, the split between china and the soviet union which he foresaw, but also perhaps, too, the fate of a american domestic politics. brian: i can hear the historians and veterans of world war ii screaming that we do not get to anything on the war. but this is a 927-page book. arthur herman has been our
12:23 pm
guest. the book is called "douglas macarthur: american warrior." our author has been a finalist for the pulitzer prize. we thank you very much. arthur: thank you. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] ♪ announcer: for free transcripts, visit us at q&a.org. programs are also available as c-span podcasts. ♪
12:24 pm
>> coming up later today on c-span, we will bring you a conversation about the future of nato and what great written's exit from the european union might mean for nato. after that, the supreme court a casegument, that is argued in march and the court ruled today finding the texas water leasing -- placing restrictions on abortion clinics is unconstitutional. he will be back at 4:30 this .fternoon us-mexico relations are we here from officials and george w. bush and obama administrations at 4:30. tonight, chair of the house
12:25 pm
technology so come a talks about cyber and data security and federal government agents is in the report card a subcommittee released in may on management information. he is joined by tim starks. >> the federal government has almost 11,000 data centers. facebook, one of the biggest companies in the world, has four. no reason the federal government has 11,000. they realized $2 billion worth of savings in the last few years by moving into the clouds. >> watch the communicators tonight on c-span two. >> our guest is jeb hensarling, .
12:26 pm
guests talk with our two . it was financial reporter for the help. as you get started, the chairman of the financial services spending package was due to make its way to the house floor preempted by the decision on gun legislation. stop for thatxt piece of legislation? >> i expect that to be up probably on one of the next available legislative days. and it includes provisions that are supported to make some of the washington bureaucracy more accountable to we the people, for example, putting the consumer financial protection bureau on budget subjected to the power of the purse of congress, to make sure they have a bipartisan commission instead of one partisan director. so there's some good provisions in the bill. i expect it to be up in fairly short order in the next few legislative days. >> as we're taping this program on this thursday morning the
12:27 pm
house democrats are still on the floor in the house of representatives. what is your view of the action that they've been taking? >> well, personally i think it's a little disturbing when i see members of congress holding up names or images of the deceased and exhortling on the house floor. i find it to be very unseemly. number one. number two i think it's a huge disrespect to the american people and democracy. to see so many democrats acting in such an undemocratic fashion. just because barack obama became president and i didn't support him i would not counsel those trying to occupy his office and shut down business. so this was an attempt by the democrats so, frankly, shut down the government. we managed to get needed funding for the zika virus done not withstanding their particular protest. and i guess last i find it somewhat ironic they're calling
12:28 pm
for votes. they've had votes. the senate voted down one of their provisions. on the the house side an appropriations committee it's been voted down. there's a procedure, kind of an inside baseball but known as a motion to recommit any time they want to. it's the one vote that the minority in the house is always guaranteed. i've been in the minority, i've been in the majority. frankly it's a bit more satisfying to be in the majority but at any time they could have brought up this provision. instead, i wish they would come together to work with us to make sure that we can more effectively conduct this war against terror. but so far they are trying to change the subject. >> thank you for taking the time. you want to talk to you a little bit. -- i want to talk to you a little bit. ultimately consumers are figuring out the economy hasn't improved.
12:29 pm
i am wondering why you think now there is a time to have a broad .- put forward collected did not live up to its billing. that is, ultimately, consumers are figuring out he economy hasn't -- in the economy improved. dodd-frank, the supporters told us it would lift the economy. it hasn't. instead we have the single most weakest most tepid recovery we've had. the economy is not working for working americans. so that's one of the reasons you have banks small lending at about a 20-year low. you have entrepreneurship, the creation of new business, at about a generational low. and much of that has to do with the sheer weight and volume, complexity, cost, uncertainty of the dodd-frank bill on our capital markets. you can't have capitalism without capital. so number one to answer your question i think the timing is
12:30 pm
good to go to the american people and say, hey, we tried the democrats' way. we tried this thing called dodd-frank. and is the economy working for you? most americans are going to say no the economy is not working for us. second, i think it is important to tell the american people what your plans are. speaker ryan has challenged us to be a party to tell the american people if you would entrust us here is the bill we would have. our bill is simple. economic growth for all, bank bailouts for none. most didn't realize didn't end -- god frank did not to big to fail. it codified it into law. it has a bailout fund. the american people are very suspicious of washington. they do not want wall street bailouts. and so we have a piece of legislation that i think they can embrace that will give them hope and choice and help grow the economy.
12:31 pm
>> to put a finer point on pete's question, when i talk to wall street bankers and bank executives on this question of why now, so many banks have spent millions and hired thousands to implement things. so having at this point having this alternative path after they've spent billions of dollars, what's the incentive there for them to move over to an alternate path that you're proposing? >> number one, i didn't necessarily write it for wall street. but i know this much. we are losing a community financial institution a day on main street and they're not dying of natural causes. we're losing credit unions, we are losing community banks. some of our key resources for small businesses and entrepreneurs. we're losing that funding channel. so when you ask about the timing they are crying out for this particular piece of legislation. with respect to those who have had to invest lots of money into compliance for dodd-frank, i understand that.
12:32 pm
frankly, some consider it a competitive advantage which is not good for our economy, it's not good for working people. but some of the heads of the largest wall street banks have essentially said this is a competitive advantage because we're the only ones who can afford to deal with the mind-numbing complexities. the last point i would make is the financial choice act is just that. it's choice. we're not forcing banks into a new system. they can opt into it if it makes sense. if they want to stay with the current regulatory low where essentially washington comes in and tells them how to run their bank and where politicians and bureaucrats will politically allocate credit they can stick with that system. my guess is a lot of their shareholders will say there's a better system. we will use more private
12:33 pm
capital. we will put private capital in front of taxpayer capital and then we can go out and help build our banks and grow the economy. >> after you rolled out this bill you met briefly with donald trump your party's presumptive nominee. at the same time, trump indicated that he is going to be putting forward a plan as he described as dismantling dodd-frank. i'm curious how your conversation went and should with expect an alternative approach from him? >> one, i don't speak for the man. i did have an occasion to meet with him. all i can say is i think that he received the briefing well. i wanted him to understand that house republicans have worked on an alternative plan to understand the basics of the plan. again, to ensure that washington is held accountable, that wall street is held accountable, that we increase basically a trade-off between a whole lot more private capital for a whole lot less federal control. and again, i didn't ask him to endorse the plan but i think that he was pleased with what he
12:34 pm
heard and should he be elected president i think we have a lot to work on together and ultimately creating greater economic opportunity for working americans. and that means you do have to dismantle dodd-frank. there's no two ways about it. one of the greatest burdens on the economy today. if we would have fundamental t -- fundamental tax reform, repeal and replace dodd-frank and allow there to be economic growth for all and bank bailouts for none this economy would absolutely take off. no doubt about it. >> one of the points that was asked repeatedly yesterday during janet yellen's hearing before your committee was on this idea of the supplemental leverage ratio. one, it seems to me that -- and to what you were speaking to earlier really this relief plan is directed to those mid sized and smaller community banks. even democrats agree those institutions should be released and janet yellen said to simplify the rules for these
12:35 pm
institutions. why not take an approach, a, how much effort have you put fords -- fourth in trying to reach bipartisan support and specifically on this issue? and why not do it as a stand-alone? >> number one, i'm very proud of the fact that as chairman we've managed to get 40 different bipartisan bills out of our committee signed into law. we probably do more bipartisan work than just about any other committee in the united states house. but having said that, democrats tend to have a religious fealty to dodd-frank. they view it as something that came down from mt. sinai and so it's very difficult to work with them. behind closed doors they will tell you they know it's hurting credit opportunities for working americans.
12:36 pm
but it seems to be kind of a political brand protection. you've got people like elizabeth warren on the senate side who has elevated this to some kind of liberal cause to celebrate and don't let the facts get in the way. does it matter how many working people are hurt? does it matter how many credit opportunities are denied? so unfortunately i haven't seen a whole lot of opportunity to work with them on this. so in this particular case, their bark for reform is a whole lot louder than their bite. not putting their votes where their mouths are when it comes to this. having said this i don't know what the next congress holds. if there are opportunities to work on a simplified leveraged ratio, a trade-off between again high levels of private capital in exchange for great levels of i would beeedom, glad to work with any democrat at any time. so far there's not exactly a line around the hallway to do that.
12:37 pm
>> at your hearing the other day with chairwoman yellen, one of the frequent questions that she got from democrats on the panel is this idea of insufficient diversity at the federal reserve. >> i could not agree more. there's absolutely an insufficiency of diversity. every single fed governor has been appointed by president obama. there's no diversity of opinion at all which is the most important diversity that counts. so because of that the federal reserve has become the highly highly partisan institution. it has lost a lot of its independence. it has lost a lot of its respect. it has lost a lot of its credibility. in so many ways the independence of the fed has been compromised. and indeed, there's no a -- not a diversity of opinion. it is a partisan institution. and so in that respect i couldn't agree more. >> but obviously the campaign coming from democrats is on ethnic diversity gender diversity et cetera. i was wondering what you think on that point. >> i want to live in a society that believes in equality of opportunity. i want to live in a society and i want to raise my children to appreciate people for the
12:38 pm
content of their character not the color of their skin. so the question is, really, where does the lack of diversity come from? is it the presence of discrimination? is it the absence of discrimination? but the diversity that counts particularly at the federal reserve is the diversity of economic opinion that is not represented when the fed is morphed into one more barack obama bureaucracy. >> i want to hone in on the mechanics of the bill. on the 10% supplemental leverage ratio. can you talk us through your thinking in terms how you arrived at 10%? why 10%? you mentioned initially in the first piece the vice chairman. how much did his views influence the final proposal?
12:39 pm
>> well, we did a lot of study. and i think it would be very difficult -- i have yet to find a single bank that anyone has ever heard of that failed in 2008, the seconds worst economic crisis in america's history i've yet to find a single bank that anybody heard of that failed at a 10% leveraged ratio. i'm not saying it is impossible for a bank to fail at that ratio but it is being prepared for essentially a 200 year flood. so we do think it is important to try to avoid the mistakes of the past. but too often what we see with a so-called risk-based leveraged ratio is that the regulators have gotten this absolutely completely wrong. they not only were complacent in what happened. they helped cause the financial crisis by essentially requiring little or no capitol to be reserved against sovereign debt and against morged-backed securities. think fannie, freddie and bonds. so everybody piled into the -- risk related assets.
12:40 pm
to the public, they were adequately capitalized on a risk basis ratio. what happened was they were not. that is why it is important to have the simple leveraged ratio to replace complexity with simplicity. i'm not saying any of these people backed our bill but it is clear that the fed has a similar idea this trade yafe between a simple leverage ratio and regulatory relief. alan greenspan has written on this as well. the federal fed governor, a number of prominent economists. already three different noble laureates have endorsed our approach. so i think there is a growing consensus that there needs to be kind of a new regulatory paradigm in banking and in capital markets. and it all surrounds having high levels of private capital to absorb losses so that we don't have systemic events, so we don't have systemic events, so
12:41 pm
we minimize the opportunities for financial panics. and again, i'm not going to have enough arrogance or hubris to say that if this bill was passed there would never be another financial incident in america. but i think they would be a whole lot less severe and less frequent if we have high levels of private capital. >> if i could follow up on that. how do you respond -- fed chairwoman yellen was asked this question and sort of explained that it's a backstop to the capital measure. and you have a debate that's happening now in terms of reorienting a slew of capital rules in order to remove that variability so that banks are all on the same level playing field but yet banks are pushing back because they argue that -- >> well, if the banks were all on the same level playing field we wouldn't be losing a community bank a day in america. that would be my first point.
12:42 pm
my second point is that with all due respect to the good people at basel they got it wrong. they helped cause the financial crisis by getting financial institutions to crowd in to things like risky subprime mortgages. and to mortgage -- and to sovereign debt of places like greece and spain. so these were the people who got it wrong. and it is again a volume of mind-numbing complexity under the basel risk-based capital rules. i think you could make the case that the level of capital was insufficient. but you cannot make the case they were insufficiently complex. they don't work. we've seen it. so why would we want to repeat that? we don't. that's why we have proposed the financial choice act. >> you touch on this a little earlier but the idea that some of the ideas in your bill are not new ones for republicans. for example, the language regarding the cfpb, replacing
12:43 pm
the director with commissioner, et cetera. these are ideas the republicans have put forth for years but have gotten basically no momentum from democrats in the white house or congress. but you mentioned as you described a religious deal to not touching dodd franks among democrats. so i'm wondering what you think the path forward looks like? does it require a republican in the white house and a strong republican majority in both houses to get anything done. >> there are some democrats at least behind closed doors who believe that it makes sense to have a regulatory commission. that there's just too much power for one individual. there's some democrats who believe one individual in america should not be the ultimate decider -- decisionmaker on whether or not a working family gets a credit card, gets a mortgage, gets an auto loan. so we'll have to see what happens after the next election. my crystal ball is a little fuzzy. i don't know who is going to win the next election. but clearly again if donald
12:44 pm
, trump is president he understands this is impeding economic growth. he wants to ensure that the economy works for working americans. i'm afraid hillary clinton is simply going to double down and take dodd-frank to even a worst place. so that would be harmful to working americans. but i don't know. we're going to have to see after the election. again, i just want to get the idea out there. put it into the public realm to be debated. and to let the american people know we have a better idea. we've got a better way forward that would allow greater economic growth, it would allow you to keep the banker that you want to keep. >> we are going to leave our newsmakers program to go live to hear remarks from european leaders with reaction to exit. brexit.g
12:45 pm
>> [foreign languages] [speaking in french] [translating in german] >> we have to apologize.
12:46 pm
we expected the translation of the news briefing. we will have to leave it here. we're going take you to a segment from this morning's washington journal. washington journal continues. joins usther macdonald now, the author of the new book "the war on cops." amid high-profile trials of the baltimore police officers charged in the 2015 death of freddie gray. last week, the of sir facing the most severe charges was acquitted. what was your reaction? certainly not surprised but admiration for the judge who followed the law and followed the facts. williams was not under pressure to try to deliver what i think was the false mob
12:47 pm
justice that was promised. acquittal, hung jury, acquittal, do you expect any in these trials? judge made it clear what is going on is an attempt to criminalize lawful policing. there is just not the evidence to support the types of charges that were brought. guest: a lot of reaction to the acquittals. the action group color of change said this -- it sends a clear message to the black community that the police and larger justice system are not designed to protect us. what message do you think it sends? guest: that the justice system will ignore knowledge that is really in fact the best hope for many crime-ridden communities, for protection of lives. baltimore last year racked up
12:48 pm
the highest per capita homicide rate in its history. there were 10 shouldered under the age of 10 who were killed in drive-by shootings because police under this false narrative that they are engaged lethal, racially german policing, have backed off of making proactive discretionary stops. lost as as are being result. last year, 45 people murdered, 43 of them were black. were a the indictments further effect on proactive releasing it i would hope with the ongoing collapse of marilyn police case that officers in baltimore realize they will not be criminalized for trying to save lives. the chilling effect, is
12:49 pm
this what we would call the ferguson effect? yes, cleveland, dce, chicago, have all been subject to what i call the ferguson , the twin phenomenon of officers backing off of discretionary, proactive policing, and the consequence of criminals thereby feeling emboldened. there in the midst of largest crime spike almost in recorded history. last year, homicides in the 56th largest cities rose 17%. that is almost unprecedented, a massive, one year shift. greater, anywhere from 50% to 90% in cleveland and 90% homicides. among the victims, three children under the age of five who were killed in september of
12:50 pm
2015 alone, washington, d.c. ended with 54% increase in milwaukee had its highest homicide rate in a decade, an increase of 73%. when officers act off of proactive policing, lives are lost. host: it is talked about in "the war on cops." the authordonald is and is with us for the next 60 minutes or so. , were youguson effect the first person to come up with the term? guest: i nationalized it. sam dotson a police chief used it to describe those going on. inobserved the drop discretionary summonses, rests, pedestrian stops, and an
12:51 pm
extraordinary increase in shootings through the first quarter of 2016. he dubbed it the ferguson effect and i took note of very alarming crime statistics throughout the and talked to police officers across the country who a very they are facing virulent situation in inner-city neighborhoods when they go to inquire about suspicious behavior and make arrests. officers frequently find themselves surrounded by hostile, jeering crowds, interfering with lawful -- incking cell phones right their face, entering a crime scene and interfering with the officers lawful authority. the discoursewith
12:52 pm
about policing that has come out of the black lives matter movement, amplified by much of the media and even echoed in the , that says that officers are racist for engaging in proactive policing in inner-city neighborhoods, that is a political message sent to the cops and understandably at some point, if they are told that doing proactive stops in high crime areas is racist, they will do less of it. when city after city has had a falloff in those types of law enforcement activities, as a result, crime is going up. in may of 2015, i wrote an op-ed in the wall street journal about a crime increase and hypothesizing that it was due to this systemwide attack on law enforcement. host: our viewers might recognize your work with that or the manhattan institute. editor of city
12:53 pm
journal and the author of "the war on cops." we are talking about it here. i want to hear your stories on this segment. -- lines as usual for democrats, republicans, independents. -- with kenny,l start republican. caller: i was wondering if heather ever saw a case against a cop that she believes is a true case? it sounds like your attitude is everything is anti-cop. that is not the way it works, you know. cops do wrong, other cops should point out the fact that they are doing wrong but they do not. in the real world, any of us would get a conspiracy charge
12:54 pm
when you watch your buddy do something dirty and you do nothing about it. it is conspiracy. but when the law does it, geewhiz. have dieday could not because if there was not a case, the man must not have died. host: did you get the original question? absolutely, the walter scott shooting in north charleston last year was abominable. man runningase of a from police after having a traffic stop, and it was alleged he tried to grab the officer's taser but then took off running and was shot in the back. wasshooting in chicago completely unjustified. had a knife but was not on nature gentry -- trajectory to threaten the officer and in fact, to the
12:55 pm
extent there was any risk to the officer, which was minimal, he created that risk by abominable tactics of getting out of his car rather than taking cover. those cases were rightly charged as murder cases. of course there are officers who make mistakes. i do not know how often that rises out of any kind of animists. not think so. the most sophisticated study of officers shoot don't shoot decisions that came out last year by lois james at the university of washington found that in fact, officers took more time to decide whether to shoot an armed black suspect than an armed white suspect. and much more frequent they shot unarmed white suspect than black suspects. that narrative is false but that is not to say there have not
12:56 pm
.een very bad shootings training has to work incessantly to allow officers to make those awful, split-second decisions. officers do feel solidarity with each other. they feel they are facing a hostile world. and they do sometimes protect each other with bad uses of force. that in laquan mcdonald's case. the real problem there was the response of the higher-ups, both not toerintendent correct early on the false narrative about the shooting, that allowed tensions to build that was a political, massive error. churches -- however
12:57 pm
shootings are,us they are not representative of policing. threat facing inner-city communities comes from crime and not the police. -- anhelen is an insult independent from pennsylvania. caller: i have a feeling there are many black neighborhoods where the inhabitants do not want the police in the neighborhood. i feel a lot of the problem is, if we had stopped and frisk, which would get the guns out of other laworhood, and enforcement methods, i feel that would really help these black neighborhoods but a lot of them do not want the police presence in their neighborhood. guest: actually, i discover the opposite. experience, i cannot go to a police community meeting in high crime areas, whether the south wants or harlem or south
12:58 pm
los angeles, and not hear from the good, law-abiding residents of those communities, that they want more cops. variantriably hear some of the following complaint. your arrest the drug dealers and their back in the corner next day. why can't you keep them off the street? there are kids hanging out on mice to -- my stupid smoking marijuana. why can't you arrest them? i spoke to a cancer amputee in the bronx who was terrified to go to her lobby to pick up her because there were teens trespassing there, smoking marijuana and dealing drugs. she told me, police, jesus, send more cops. she said the only summer she felt safe to go outside was when there was a police watchtower on her corner. and activists
12:59 pm
criminologists would see a police watchtower as the very embodiment of an oppressive police state. orminologists like bernard invoking michelle would say this is the pinup to con -- this is the attempt to surveillance. she said that was the most peaceful summer she has ever had. in my experience, certainly who feel likele police are oppressing them, but i can talk to many young black males who have never been stopped by the police and they say it's because i am a good boy, someone told me that in brooklyn, or yes, i have been stopped, but i explained, i understand what the police were doing. host: john is waiting on a line in maryland. caller: i live in waldorf,
1:00 pm
however, i live -- work in washington, d.c. i agree 100%. day and try toy give 100% of myself. -- s raised a christian i try to do it every day but personally, talking to my we do agree it does affect us. in the back of your mind, you're like, have to make an arrest that what will happen to my job? will there be a complaint and maybe i will lose my job. it does affect your job. when did you start feeling that way? have you always felt that way as an officer? after: definitely
1:01 pm
ferguson. the job is hard as it is. , but will always be that definitely, we can sense it in the air, there is a lot of pressure. you are oh is thinking about job security and your kids and your family. the other thing that is wrong is the court. i read that this guy, he was sleeping in his car with a shotgun in his car. he had drugs in all sorts things. then, he got probation for it, and he was on the street like a few months later, and we arrested him again with another gun. it is a ridiculous. i think our job is hard as it is. we should not have extra worry in the back of our mind, job security. let us do our job. john is absolutely
1:02 pm
representative of cops. there are two things going on here. atmosphere,reet with people charged with hate, an officer in chicago, now a prime example of what i call the with shootings, over the weekend, one person shot every 43 minutes because stops are down there 90%, a chicago officer told me he has never encountered this degree of hatred in his 20 years of policing. the one hand,on and on the other, there is a dominant narrative which says that offices -- officers are racist if they get out of their cars and make a pedestrian stop and ask questions. that has an effect. from lawsuits, coming
1:03 pm
from activist communities like the 8 -- like the aclu. they recently published a report about the chicago police that said the pedestrian stop activity there was racially 74% of all police stops in chicago over a four-month time in 2014 had black subjects and about one third of the population of chicago is black. by the aclu's's reasoning, and that is also a reasoning the justice department uses in filing civil rights laws to turn investigations against departments, that shows police bias. what is left out of the analysis is crime rates. according to victims of an witnesses to violent crime, in chicago, for example, blacks
1:04 pm
commit over 80% of all shootings , 85 percent of properties, and 79% of all murders. whites, also about one third of the population, commit about 1% of all shootings and about 2% of all robberies. given those disparities in crime rates, police cannot go to where people are being victimized by drive-by shootings without being in minority neighborhoods looking for gang bangers. they are not there out of their own choice. it is what the victims are telling them. that kind of discourse has an effect and john's point about worrying about how things will just me sayingot this. fbi director james comey has now twice confirmed the ferguson effect. he calls it the viral video effect but it is the same thing. let's go to brooklyn, new
1:05 pm
york, on the line for democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. i will just say a few things. one, this perspective is completely void of historical confirmation of the relationship between law enforcement and black and brown communities. crime is a direct correlation and has been historically, drug proliferation in our country. we know how they get here. the consequence is for police officers who operate outside of their police code or guidelines and what the law is, there must be some consequences. that is the bottom line. we know it is a tough job and they have to makes what decisions, but if their decision proves to be faulty, they have got to prove they are able to be
quote
1:06 pm
a police officer. that is the way it is. like any other profession. stop and frisk, i'm here in new york and it has been statistically proven that it does not reduce gun violence, did not drive down crime. you need to update your book. that has been documented already. the other thing is i am a member of the community board, brooklyn, which was the stop and frisk capital of the world. wem here to tell you submitted a resolution to the council and the mayor's office against the formal policing because we know it does not work and we lived through it already. host: there is a lot there. let's let heather macdonald respond. guest: vincent is right as it abysmal history. complicit us in the egregious betrayal of its founding ideals. they help to maintain jim crow
1:07 pm
and were involved in slavery. that history has a long echo effect and makes any police shooting of blacks, especially unarmed, and that is completely understandable. that history has inurrent embodiment today policing, which is more professional than ever, and in that, the percentage of black homicide victims killed by cops theuch lower than percentage of white and hispanic homicide victims killed by cops. 12% of all white and hispanic homicide victims are killed in police shootings compared to 4% of all black homicide victims killed in police shootings. the black lives matter narrative that this is something targeted at lacks is just not true.
1:08 pm
infar as stop and frisk brookland, brookland was in fact the target of a whole media campaign in the new york times about its stop rate. it was about lacks there in brownsville are 15 times more likely to be stopped than whites. that ignores the per capita shooting rate in brown's rate is 81 times higher than nearby bay ridge brookland, for instance, which is several miles away. it is that extraordinary difference in per capita shootings, 81 times higher, that aans that every time there is trial by shooting in brownsville, the police will not be there looking to make stops to avoid a retaliatory gang
1:09 pm
shooting. this is not something -- the crime data puts them there. as far as stops being effective we can see what is happening in places like chicago where stops are down 90%. and homicides are now shooting through the roof and people are shot on an hourly basis. on that point, there was a new york police officer inspector general for the camera last week, not specifically looking at stop at frisk the inspector general looking at the effectiveness of those kinds of stops in whether it had and would affect of overall crime legs --crime rates. we can state that the's inspector general's -- we can
1:10 pm
state of the inspector general's -- and 2015, quality of life enforcement rates after monitoring client. there has not been an increase in felony crime. the statistical method needs close analysis. it is a very complicated analysis and does not take into thatnt the possibility this enforcement of low-level public order offenses and violent crime is so closely anated, you have indoctrinate problem. there is another study that was done that came out of the brennan center for justice, which is a knee-jerk prolong
1:11 pm
enforcement group, that found the reason that the new york state prison population went another prison0 populations were going up, was that the police in new york city were paying attention in -- violent felony arrest dropped persistently sending fewer people to prison. i would argue there is another reason to engage in the type of public order policing, which is attending meetings in high crime areas. that is what people are asking the precinct commanders to do. you don't hear, why are you arresting the robbers? you hear disorderly conduct. there is 100 kids hanging out and fighting. i was in the 41st precinct of
1:12 pm
the south bronx last summer, and they were describing these massive gang events. they said there was a girl who was beat up. whatever happened to truancy officers? people complain about car stereos and illegal vending. the people have a choice -- the police have a choice. respond to those requests from community members for some modicum of order that people in other communities take for granted, and if they do do that though, the aclu will get their hands on that data. or they cannot respond at all. in which case some of those people who are demanding quality of life policing, just get ignored. guest: williamstown, new jersey. edward is waiting on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning.
1:13 pm
host: go ahead, edward. caller: i want to make a comment. i tend to agree with the previous color. caller.revious to the 1960's and 1950's and all the way back. there has been a lack of trust of the police and african-american and latino community for a long time perceived iswe least getting away with a lot of stuff. now the pendulum has swung all the way back to the other side they cannoteel police and be effective like the are supposed to because they are afraid of lawsuits or losing their jobs. but again, it is a few cops that has needed that for all of them. policeception of the
1:14 pm
getting away with a lot of stuff , they are operating way outside of their policy, it has been like that for decades and decades in the african-american community. agree with edward and then sent that there is a history here -- edward and vincent that there is a history here. i think policing has radically changed. those memories die hard. sure, there can be vast improvement in officers' demeanor. they need incessant andforcement in courtesy respect, not treating people roughly and they need to explain themselves if they have engaged in a pedestrian stop and play
1:15 pm
the radio call they give the suspect description that led to that stop. acknowledge what officers are facing that contributes to what could be a very of noxious street attitude, which is resistance from criminals, resistance from throwners, airmail being fs of public housing. and another problem, they face the massive effects of the no snitch ethic, partly due to fear of retaliation, but it is also due to simply anti-cop attitude.
1:16 pm
there is a lot of work to be done in rebuilding police-community relations. what also needs to be done for that to happen is a more accurate data-driven narrative about why police are in communities and what they are doing their. guest: all of this discussed in the "the war on cops." it is the book by heather macdonald. we have a special line for law enforcement --202-748-8003. let's head out to los angeles, california where eddie is on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: i wanted to ask ms. mcdonald, she was talking about the youngsters in new york. has she visited any of the african-american schools? most of the money has been taken out to help those in your last segment, the illegals. the black schools had to pay for
1:17 pm
their english and other activities. taken thellegals have steps away that those youngsters would have had in the fast food and bagging and all of those types of things. tell me about chicago and their, what is it called? they have to pay restitution, or reparations for the black people that they took and was beating and torturing them by the police. guest: heather macdonald? i've agree with daddy -- i agree with eddie that the massive influx in california is putting enormous strain on social services, including education. something thatis
1:18 pm
is happening across the country. i think as well, there is a responsibility on the part of parents to make sure that their kids are attending school and engaged in their school work. that would help as well as far as improving educational outcomes. i don't think the problem is fundingily is lack of for public education, which is not to say again, that the unchecked, low skilled, illegal immigration is not an anonymous fiscal strain -- an enormous fiscal strain. is the is talking about place where gang members are taken for interrogation. said that this was a
1:19 pm
black site. they are there because they are interrogating them -- they are there because interrogating them in a regular police precinct would put lives at risk. guest: terry is a republican. good morning. caller: please don't cut me off. what i have to say is very important. hadprohibition of alcohol the same thing said about them. before they passed that, there were no gangs. they passed the drug laws. their appeal the alcohol law 13 years after they passed it and the murder rate went down. scientistake a rocket
1:20 pm
to know what would solve the problem. guest: what do you think? guest: it is an empirical question. ands a familiar argument one that is plausible. one can understand the argument. what i know is that when i am in an inner-city neighborhood, i hear they want more drug enforcement, lot less -- not less. weed in my hallway, why can't you do something about it? the oppression of illegal activity. what is not the case is that the foron drugs is responsible black disproportion in prison.
1:21 pm
, drug virtually no affect enforcement -- you can remove all drug prisoners today from the state prison system, and the percentage of blacks in prison told go down from 37.4% 37.2%. know, again, what i am hearing is we want the dealers off the streets, not let's legalize drugs. host: we will take two phone calls in a row. jordan is up first in burnett, texas. go ahead, jordan. caller: hi, there. i work in law enforcement as a correction officer. officer, weional don't get the recognition for doing the hard work we do. i just wanted to put that out there. i am against mandatory minimums for sentencing.
1:22 pm
i am a proud democrat. and i just wanted to say that. host: all right, let's go to joe in maryland on the line for law enforcement. caller: i am a police officer in a large and work suburban county. i agree with the author will heartedly. -- wholeheartedly. is, i think the political leaders would rather do with cleaning up the body than a negative affect of having some video on youtube or a lawsuit for wrongful death. offices in my department are scared. they don't want to lose their jobs or be negatively for trade -- negatively portrayed.
1:23 pm
good,unately, there are law-abiding minority residents who care deeply about their community who are being negatively affected because of the fact that the cost is not worth the reward, for us. host: joe, you work here in d.c.? caller: i do. guest: joe is right about corrections officers not getting much attention or acknowledgment. it i was in chicago and spoke to a cold case homicide detective that started out in the cook county jail. and the behavior that corrections officers encounter is completely off the radar. he was telling us that prisoners mouthst feces in their so they can spit it at the
1:24 pm
officers. most, lord ofthe the flies, type of environment anyone can encounter. as far as mediterranean mums, the federal penalties -- again, letting knowledge one thing, the so-called war on drugs began with black input. the rockefeller drug laws in new york city. -- was a push that began the federal crack sentences, the congressional black caucus is were saying this is oppression. brooklynor jones in and a queens congressman said this is the worst self-inflicted oppression we have known since slavery.
1:25 pm
this was an attempt to actually acknowledge the pain inflicted by this crack epidemic on inner-city communities. have the penalties for federal drug offenses gotten out of wack? possibly. i am not against tweaking those mandatory minimums. but before we had those mandatory minimums for repeated violent offenders, you had crime going through the roof in the 1960's and 1970's. we were trying alternatives to incarceration that had been proposed and we had a 373% in violent crime through the 1960's into the 1990's. as joe and offices word about their careers, he is exactly right. this is not about officers not wanting accountability.
1:26 pm
they are already subject to numerous oversight bodies. this is a political issue. they are getting the message that they are racist for engaging and proactive policing. for getting out of their cars, we should not be surprised that they start backing off. is in piedmont, south carolina, republican. go ahead. caller: yes. they don'tced that live locally. , crack come into town skulls, and ask stupid and run across the county line to live. none of them are local cops. drivesis in our town the -- no one in our town drives cup cars. they are not having to live with the people they are acting so mean to. there should be some rules instituted where your
1:27 pm
jurisdiction should have something to do with where you live. int: let's go to cecilia meridian, mississippi, life for democrats. go ahead. caller: yes. i think she is taking a very naive approach to this. no one wants to have a war against policeman. we want policeman. the one good, decent policeman who are fair. i visit my son in new york after 9/11. new york had a really horrible reputation. that, they had enough policeman in those neighborhoods, i have never felt so safe in my life and i am from mississippi. but there was a cop on every corner. and if they want to stop the violence in chicago, they could stop it. we need to take some of those tax dollars from the top 1%, or from all of these 26,000 member churches that are getting all of
1:28 pm
this tax-free money, we need to put law enforcement out there i'm a but we need to make sure they are well trained. they want to go in after the fact. they don't do anything preventative. i don't mean you run somebody down and frisk them and all of that. get to know what is going on in your neighborhood. if you do that, they will be able to contain this crime. host: heather macdonald? guest: with a residency requirements are present in a lot of police department. in places like your city, cops cannot afford to live in a city, so some of them do live two hours away. but that is a truly economic decision. i am after the have been studies done on whether that affects policing. i have gone to police academies and what i hear from those young recruits is they are there to serve the community. it doesn't matter where they live. and it certainly doesn't matter
1:29 pm
what the race of cops are. there have been studies that show that race works against what you would assume in the narrative, matter there was a study in the philadelphia police department and found that black and is officers are far more likely to be subject to what is known is threatness perception when it comes to black subjects. that is mistaking a cell phone for a gun, for instance, and shooting an unarmed person. i was certainly argue that race a police officers doesn't matter. theree with cecilia that police need to be absolutely engaged in the community and do everything they can to get to know people there. but when violence because -- violence becomes what it is like in chicago, they are spending a
1:30 pm
lot of time running from radio call to radio call. proactive policing is important. it is important to stop that disorder and to feel confident that if you get out of your car, and question somebody hanging out on a drug corner at 1:00 a.m., going into his waistband like he has a gun, that will not count against you. aclu gets every single stop form. they created this massive stop form that is cumbersome to fill out. the real problem is that the aclu is doing oversight of the police department there. and given their methodology, officers say, why should i make those stops? host: 10 minutes left in this segment. it a lot of people want to talk to you. we will go to john in pennsylvania, republican. go ahead. caller: good morning and thanks for c-span.
1:31 pm
it is really an honor. ms. mcdonald, i have been aware of you for a long time and has read your stuff. it is really tremendous. you are so courageous, i must admit. i have seen you on mainstream media few times. these people are so crazy. they are so adamant. they are operating from for information. statistically, it is so inaccurate, it drives me crazy. i keep on hearing about underserved communities, underserved communities. and with the education spending, what is it? $30,000 per kid? pennsylvania, the all white, poor communities are
1:32 pm
getting $6,000 a year in education annually. i have a question for you though. withxamples they come up and immediately focus on -- al case,on, the duke rape louisiana teenagers, then the last couple of years, the florida teenagers got shot by a guy, and of course ferguson in baltimore. they seem to pick the worst example to reinforce their thesis? i would like to know the true motivation of the mainstream media? it is so deceptively promoting this nonsense to the public. host: heather macdonald, i will let you answer. guest: he is right that spending in urban schools is
1:33 pm
astronomical. new work in new jersey is huge and spending. there was a decision that resulted in millions being spent on a kansas city school that had virtually no affect on school achievement and graduation rates. i agree with john. the people who have been chosen -- michael brown himself, that still gets venerated as a martyr. serrated the "he hands up, don't shoot." people in the community of ferguson who saw what actually went on there, which was michael brown beating up officer darren wilson and trying to wrap his gun, were intimidated from testifying against -- were intimidated from testifying at the grand jury, and these were
1:34 pm
black residents in ferguson. michael brown chick -- michael brown should bcompletely shelved, but he is still out there. as far as the mainstream media, i guess i would say, the narrative of a racist society is safer than looking at gave your. -- looking at behavior. while cops need to be trained and courteous, the real problem that we have that the media does not want to talk about is extremely elevated rates of black on black crime. that is a taboo subject. you have blacks nationally committing homicide at eight times the rate of whites and hispanics combined. young black males between the ages of 14 and 17, commit gun homicide at 10 times the rate of whites and hispanic male teams
1:35 pm
combined. teens combined. . patternst understand of police activity unless you know what the actual reality of crime as. we will remember in the 1990's, on newss an explicit organizations, not to report the race of criminal suspects because they were so frequently black. this was an extraordinarily counterproductive policy because when you have an actual criminal suspect, to not to give the public everything possible known about that suspect in order to get him off the street is irresponsible, and yet, the racial agenda trumps public safety in order to conceal the sad and disturbing facts of black on black crime, which is not to say that black criminals represent the majority of the
1:36 pm
black population. they do not. the majority are good, law-abiding people who want the cops. joe, brandywine, maryland. go ahead. caller: good morning. ms. macdonald, you get your statistics from paperwork that someone else has written. i am a person who is lived what you are not talking about. a police officer in my neighborhood growing up in brooklyn, new york in the 1950's. officer wallace. i remember his replacement was a white cop. i remember the changes that came in when they started throwing trash cans off of the roofs. there were people rallied -- there were people
1:37 pm
rallying together and terrorizing people in the neighborhood for just getting on the corner, doing nothing really. in the summertime, we had nothing to do. these things started changing band and they have completely escalated. the people don't know the police in their neighborhood. i have a policeman that lives right behind me, and i don't even know his name right now. into theface smashed asphalt because of me singing the police doing wrong -- seeing the police doing wrong. they were beating a prostitute. they asked me to go inside when i was standing at my door. they drove me out and smashed my face into the concrete, and i filed a suit. i was living in memphis, tennessee at the time. do you know what happened to the suit? i don't.
1:38 pm
guest: when was that? caller: oh my god, that was 1975 at that time. host: i want to get heather macdonald a chance to respond. guest: joe is absolutely right. he exemplifies what i have said. these are historical facts. in the 1950's, policing was buried different. in tennessee in 1975, policing was very different. portione are a minute of the police population. we had 36 shootings of unarmed like mail/tear out of millions of contacts. most of those engagements, the opposite person was trying to grab the officers's gun, or beating him with his own equipment. but the fact that joe received brutal treatment from cops,
1:39 pm
understandably, in the past, it colors his view today, but it is not representative. host: the book is the "the war on cops." >> live to the atlantic council in washington for a discussion on the future of nato and what great britain's exit from the european union might mean for the organization. this is hosted by the atlantic council. it is just getting underway. >> thank you to both of you for your leadership. thank you both for your service and for being with us today. we are delighted they are joining us for a conversation with one of our senior fellows, evelyn park is, will lead in a minute. we are here for this conversation on nato after
1:40 pm
brexit and are being joined by a larger audience online and on tv. we encourage all of you to submit your thoughts and questions using amb. heffern, and also #turenato strongerwithallies. about the year ago, we set out to look at what was happening on both sides of the atlantic. concerned about america's role in the world and our ability and will to continue to play a leadership role. but at the same time, what was happening in europe as forces of fragmentation were undermining solidarity among our allies in europe. brexit has delivered that message in sharp terms. what brings these issues together is we come together through our alliance. in the context of this uncertainty of where the european project is headed, we do believe the u.s. role in europe is going to become even more important to help ensure a
1:41 pm
sense of pretty stability. i'm going to leave the report to vassar burns and general jones to lay out their conclusions and findings. but i wanted to put it in context of four reasons why the atlantic council moved forward on this report at this time. before the latest debate, there was concern about the marginalization of nato, that it was no longer at the center of our national security and foreign policy. there is a lot of talk about nato as "them." in washington, we refer to them across the atlantic. in europe, they refer to them as the americans. if you don't own the alliance, it will wither. we wanted to make a call for leadership and imagination, particularly american leadership. second, we are headed to warsaw which will prove to be a significant summit for this alliance. our point is that what is happening right now in terms of european security, insurgency the world, we need to be
1:42 pm
prepared for the long term. budgets andat our political resolve, we are not yet postured for the long-term realities we face. when you look to the et, to the south, internal challenges. berd, there is beginning to remnants of a strong narrative playing out across europe today. it is the broken promises narrative president putin used in the wake of the annexation of crimea that we broke our promises to russia, therefore justifying russia's actions. you here today in europe that warsaw's strategy is provocative. i think we felt there was a problem. that if we could not exercise, if we could not demonstrate the reality of our ability to protect our allies in the east, we would be negligent of our responsibilities. i think that will be a coming
1:43 pm
theme we will say out -- see play out as a way to frame the public perception. overreach?rovocative debate, theur own atlantic council has been one of the strong voices calling on our european allies, canadian allies, to do more. that will continue. if our only debate is driven through the alliance and the united states is one of burden sharing, we are going to underlined the sense of the understanding of the value of our alliances. we believe our alliances are force multipliers for our values, our interests, and is one of our greatest you did assets -- strategic assets our allies -- only wish they had. he is a strong voice on these issues in and out of government any former key advisor to help
1:44 pm
moderate our conversation. i will invite general jim jones and ambassador burns to join her. oferal jones was the chair the council itself. former supreme allied commander in europe. he currently is the chairman of the brent scowcroft center at the atlantic council and head of the jones group. ambassador nick burns who also serves in the board served as undersecretary for political affairs in addition to being our permanent representative to the nato alliance and ambassador to greece and is currently professor at harvard. let me turn it over to evelyn to get the conversation started. dr. farkas: thank you for being here today. honored to be here with these gentlemen to discuss the report. i think it is quite timely. i'm hoping we can transform the discussion and make the discussion about nato and institutions more sizzling and perhaps we can make these
1:45 pm
the spike boys of internationalism. we are going to try to make this more interesting. if bernie sanders can do it, you can do it. let's make it more conventional and approachable. i think it is important to spring forward a little bit and use some of the work damon discussed about values and defending our way of life. while this report looks like a dry, usual, pre-summit report on both of -- on nato -- you have read a lot of these reports. but the reality is i think what have not convey when we these conversations is is really about our values. these groups? it is also about spreading democracy, strengthening democracy, protecting our economic freedom of navigation, freedom of commerce.
1:46 pm
these are not to be taken for granted. without strong alliances, without the military, without defense, you cannot have all of this economic things of prosperity and democracy. you are here to listen to the sizzling sikes place. i think you each have five minutes to give your synopsis or just the high points of things you think are most important about the report. i have a few questions for you and i'm sure these folks have very interesting sessions and comments. over to you, ambassador burns. . amb. burns, ret.: first, i want to say thank you to the atlantic council. it is the fastest-growing think tank in washington. when fred and damon took it over, it had fallen on hard times. it is now one of our most influential centers for learning and debate in washington, so congratulations to frank, damon, david, and everyone else at the
1:47 pm
atlantic council. i want to say what a pleasure it has been to work with general jones over the last eight months on this report. we worked together at nato at a tough time after 9/11 and i have two minutes respect for jim and thank him for his continued leadership. why did we write the report? we believe nato and the european union are facing the greatest set of challenges since the end of the cold war 25 years ago when the soviet union imploded the summer 25, 1991. i never thought we would come back to this time. i was serving in the administration of george h.w. bush on soviet affairs. we felt liberated from the cold war. from the threat of imminent destruction. bushe words of president 41, europe had become whole and at peace. that was our mantra through the clinton administration, the george w. bush administration, and into the obama
1:48 pm
administration. that changed in march of 2014 when president clinton decided he would invade crimea and a fine -- divide ukraine after having invaded georgia in 2008. this report is underlined by strategic trendlines we find very negative. both for the united states and canada as well as for europe. first is this re-division of europe by the russian federation , the search for strategic depth. that is why they went into georgia. that is why they had intimidated our mina -- armenia and also azerbaijan. it requires a response from nato. the number one recommendation i think it's important is nato should station troops permanently in the baltic , permanently in
1:49 pm
poland, permanently in romania and the black sea and have the capacity to act on the air and sea. this is not warmongering. the russian government wants you to believe. damon and i were in europe last week. the russians are saying nato is provoking a crisis. these are clearly modest in terms of the troop commitments. measures designed to stabilize the alliance, protect our smaller allies in the east and do what the nato alliance has to do, protect the member states and collective security in europe. we need to establish effective deterrence against putin. and that is why our number one recommendation is the permit bracing -- permanent basing of nato troops. america and the european union should maintain sanctions on russia. those are now in question.
1:50 pm
the prime minister said we ought to trade more with russia. president hollande says we should question the sanctions and maybe take them off in december. there is a big debate in germany. we saw it in berlin on thursday the twoay between political parties whether they should maintain sanctions against the russian federation. the europeans will extend them this week. but in december in the middle of our presidential transition, some europeans want to make a move to return to business as usual with russia. thankfully, chancellor merkel has been given every indication that unless he appears to them to the letter, germany is not going to relax sanctions. there is going to be a big battle in europe and across the atlantic on this issue. and we believe sanctions should be maintained. that is what effective deterrence is. third, we have got to have a stronger nato as we move forward
1:51 pm
with deterring the russian federation and president putin. right now, five of the l.a. zoo 28 spend more than 2% of gdp on defense. that is the floor. those are the minimal expectations. it is to be 3%. true that 20 of the allies have inched up in their defense spending but not many close to 2%. at 1.1% ofgermany gdp, spain, italy, the netherlands, need to do more in response to the crisis in europe. when donald trump, and it pains me to say this, because i am opposed to donald trump, has hit a chord with the american public that somehow we are being taken advantage of because our allies don't spend enough on defense, but maybe is incentive for the europeans to do more for their own defense and collectively in nato. we also have other recommendations.
1:52 pm
that is to be much more proficient in our cyber capabilities, to fully deploy missile defense, to be active to nato's south in places like morocco, tunisia, jordan, iraq, in training air forces at their request in these countries. there is a big set of challenges ahead and we believe it requires american leadership. i will end on this point. we are the leader of this alliance, the united states of america. we always have been. the alliance desperately needs leadership. when president obama goes to the warsaw summit in 10 days, he is going to be going there in the wake of this very dramatic consequential, historic british vote to leave the european union. while it is too early to know ,xactly where this is leading if britain does lead, we are looking potentially at a fractured united kingdom with the scotland question and irish
1:53 pm
question coming back a century later to the devil the future of the united kingdom. we are going to need to see the united states embraced the united kingdom in our special relationship. is the fifth-largest economy in the world. it is the second strongest military in nato. we will still be able to work with them in nato, but we won't have the british to be the tough line and pragmatic voice in e.u. councils on issues like do you continue sanctions against russia. we talked about this in berlin in a public forum on friday morning. the united states is going to have to seek a deeper relationship with germany. germany, the dominant country in the european union the most respected leader in europe, angela merkel. that relationship is one we will have to build further in this administration and the next. thank you very much. gen. jones, usmc, ret.: thank you, nick.
1:54 pm
thank you for being here. i would like to echo portions of this report and acknowledge my predecessor twice removed at mentor, as here, great friend to all of us who were privileged to follow in his footsteps. i would like to underscore the work of jeff lightfoot in writing this report. jeff, thank you very much. your performance was extraordinary. i think nato -- this nato summit sees nato facing forward strategic challenges. with regardnick to russia. the chaos and disorder imitating from the middle east, a less than certain u.s. leadership and engagement policy, which does not just start with this administration.
1:55 pm
it actually started before this administration. and then a european union that ened, best we can -- weak maybe fatally so, time will tell. summit and 2014 was about reassurance. the warsaw summit of 2016 is about deterrence. there are a lot of people talking about deterrence and dialogue. as nick burns correctly pointed out in a private lunch, if you want to have effective dialogue, the first thing you need is to have effective deterrence. otherwise, there is not much of a conversation. i think that is extremely important. i'm pleased to see the shift towards deterrence. the highlight of the summit will be nato's enhanced forward presence of the four battalions stationed in each of the baltic countries and the use of the bases in romania and bulgaria.
1:56 pm
the u.s. quadrupling resources is also extremely helpful. and the fact that nato is moving an officialyber domain is also quite useful. out,nk as a report points nato's activities on levels of ambition need more emphasis in certain areas. the first one it comes to my is going to beto used for in the 21st century. is if natoparadigm was a defensive, reactive alliance in the 20th century, in the 21st century given the nature of the threats that face us and the speed at which these threats are coming out as, it seems to me nato must become a more proactive alliance.
1:57 pm
i don't mean starting wars or triggering wars everywhere. i mean preventing wars. predictable disasters from happening so we wind up in another afghanistan and iraq for a decade or more. tos proactivity speaks well an enhanced program involving partners started years ago. i think we need to do more about that on a grander scale. migration is a big problem and causing incredible tensions politically. it may have had something to do with brexit as well, obviously. preventing this uncontrolled movement of millions of people is something i think the grand alliance of 28 countries should be focused on and should be doing something about an preventing those kinds of
1:58 pm
colossal movements of people is something we should worry about. job is toto's first enhance the security of itself and also to help other like-minded countries in africa and other developing countries figure out how to assure their own security so they can move into economic development, governance, and rule of law. i think this proactivity is a new word in nato. i'm glad to see this included in the report because i think it speaks well to what nato can and should be in the 21st century. spending, nick covered very well. if we don't achieve this 2% -- of gdp, shame on us. this was agreed to in the summit of 2002. and it is now 2016. we still have too many countries
1:59 pm
falling short of what they agreed to many years ago. and frankly, if we don't achieve that, nato's credibility is suspect. u.s. leadership, i want to dwell on that for a little bit. u.s. leadership over the history of nato has been central. it does not mean it is dictatorial or we talk down to our allies. but it means a u.s. president has to be engaged in what nato is about. fromnnot simply walk away a 28-member nation alliance, 27 including us, and pretend it is not useful. it is terribly useful. the potential for nato in the rest of the century is as far ahead as i can see is tremendous. but it has to be used correctly. it will be unless the sitting
2:00 pm
u.s. president devotes a fair amount of time to making sure the secretary general of nato is recognized almost at head of state level and is as important an ally as any single country. the nato secretary-general walks into the oval office. he brings the voice of 27 sovereign countries. that is important. how we react to that is also very important. summit will this see a reassertion of u.s. firm commitment to not only supporting and leading the alliance and also making sure members live up to what they have agreed to do. finally, the nato/e.u. has always been slightly uncomfortable. we have never really figured out how those organizations coexist.